It is ironic that the alliance between Europe and the United States has been put into question by disagreements over the Iraq crisis in late 2002 and early 2003. The simmering talk of the transatlantic rift—and, to be fair, there has been talk of such a rift for quite some time starting as early as beginning of the 1990s, especially among political observers and analyst—erupted and was elevated to the highest echelons of policy makers. The long-denied rift confirmed itself on the lips of those who make ultimate political decisions: the Americans blamed Europeans (at least some of them) as betrayers of their commitments to the alliance, while Europeans accused the Americans of hot-headedness. There was a bitter exchange of degrading phrases between the two sides just prior to the outbreak of the war in Iraq, pitting particularly the French and Germans versus the Americans. Some might—or might like to—see the Iraq crisis as a decisive watershed that shattered the long-nurtured hopes of an idyllic and permanent alliance between the U.S. and Europe. Though such a conclusion in itself would not necessarily be inaccurate, one needs to highlight the premises on which it could be based. At the outset, it should be made clear what is meant by Europe. Secondly, one has to define the essence of the ‘alliance’ between Europe and the U.S. Thirdly, the role and mission of NATO has to be reevaluated. Only when these primary issues are addressed can one proceed to assess whether there is a rift, how deep it is, and what are its real causes. We shall begin with Europe. There have been and still are discussions over the question, What constitutes Europe? The criteria offered to measure Europeanness range from geography to language to religious tradition (as a rule, identified with Christianity) to a more abstract concept of common values. And, if there is a unanimous agreement over what constitutes the core of Europe—the countries of so-called Western Europe—there is a virtually insoluble disagreement concerning the periphery. Russia and Turkey, for example, are sometimes included in the notion of Europe, while at other times they are excluded. The small states in the Caucasus are also in limbo, for they do not consider themselves as part of Asia (this applies at least to Georgia and Armenia), yet are not always welcome at pan-European forums. And what about Israel? The majority of its citizens are of European descent, its sportsmen play in European championships, yet geographically Israel is in the Near East. As for geography, it is not much help regarding the eastern borders of the continent, for one is never sure where exactly Europe ends and Asia begins. Moreover, it divides at least one country, namely Russia, between two continents. Yet it is precisely a lib-